But for all his Mirfield upbringing, King Lear-this, Hamlet-that and Godot-the other, not to mention the definitive Ebenezer Scrooge (right...for tenuous Christmas angle), he will perhaps be best known by many as the Captain of the Starship Enterprise. That, or X-Men.

So to bring some festive cheer to The Media Blog we're asking you to suggest one of the many headlines we'll inevitably see on this story. Post your suggestions below. (Originally this was a competition, which is now closed, but feel free to post just for fun).

Dec 21, 2009

The Observer's 2009 quiz, sweetly headlined 'This one's for all the family' features 100 questions so miserable I only got halfway through before needing a lie down.
Some example questions:

What is cello scrotum?

More than 600 TV jobs are being lost, mainly in Leeds, due primarily to the closing of which two programmes?

Six people were injured after auditions for a reality show turned into a shambolic stampede in the streets of New York, during which three people were arrested. Which show?

Everyone knows the name Phil Spector, who was finally jailed this year for murder. But can you remember the name of his female victim?

American Dr Tiller was shot dead in his church by anti-abortionists. He worked in one of only three clinics in the States which continues to perform terminations after how many weeks?

And my personal favourite:

Artist Maurice Agis was fined £10,000 for having breached health and safety protocols when his inflatable sculpture Dreamspace burst free of its moorings and floated away in 2006, with people inside. How many people died?

Fun for all the family! I can imagine the conversations going on across Britain as people settle down with a mulled wine and some mince pies...

"Was it five?" "No, I think it was less. Some were just maimed."
"Does it count if they've died since 2006?"
"Hang on, wasn't this quiz supposed to be about 2009?"

Dec 20, 2009

"Google, the internet giant whose informal corporate motto is "don't be evil", did not pay any tax on its £1.6 billion advertising revenues in Britain last year. The firm, which has a substantial presence in London, diverted all its advertising earnings from customers in Britain to its Irish subsidiary."

On the surface it's a fair story, at a time when bonuses, taxes and any perceived financial inequality along 'us and them' lines is regarded as fair game for mob conjecture. But given Google is far from alone in this kind of accounting practice, and a more beneficial story for the common good may have examined more closely why companies are avoiding siting their headquarters in the UK, it's logical to wonder what effect Sunday Times' proprietor Rupert Murdoch's beef with Google had not only on the placement but the writing of this story.

The suspicion this is personal rather than professional is perhaps supported not only by the cheap dig at Google's motto but by the short-sighted risk taken here. Most notably the risk of accusations of hypocrisy.

After all, Murdoch is no stranger to playing the game when it comes to the benefits and advantages of doing business on contrasting sides of national borders. Murdoch of course became a US citizen in order to get around media ownership laws in that country. And a better example may well be his own companies' approach to corporation tax.

The most notorious instance remains that of Rupert Murdoch. Last year the Guardian trawled 101 of the old brute's subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Virgin Islands and the Dutch Antilles. The reporters worked out that if Newscorp Investments paid corporation tax at the current rate of 30 per cent - the lowest ever, by the way - it would have given the Revenue £350m over 11 years, enough to build seven new hospitals, 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools. As it was, it paid virtually nothing.

Google may counter that Ireland is a lot closer to its other European operations than Dutch Antilles is to Wapping or the street corner newsagents of Britain. It may also argue that it's done nothing wrong, or certainly nothing other comanies haven't been doing for years. It may even choose to tweak the Google rank of the above Observer piece to support that assertion.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of working the tax system the more interesting media story here isn't what is written on the page, but why.

All, I'd argue, demonstrate the crisis of confidence in journalism right now,

No sensible person would agree with the stark outrageousness of the BBC's question, but you can sympathise with its dilemma, caught in the middle between critics who've consistently labelled it too PC and others who think it's now tried too hard to redress a perceived liberal bias. You wouldn't blame its journalists for feeling utterly paralysed as the corporation attempts to second-guess the responses of its increasingly vocal global audience.

Not surprisingly the Uganda question caused another Twitter storm, although it didn't quite reach the scale of the Jan Moir affair. Roy Greenslade's article on the reaction to Moir's column sees him express concerns that the supposed strengths of social media, such as its immediacy and its demolition of traditional hierarchies, are actually weaknesses. In other words, he's joined the backlash against the backlash, reflecting the bafflement and uncertainty amongst traditional media about how to harness its readers' online energies.

John Waples' departure from journalism to “the dark side” means he joins many other high profile escapees from an industry that's taken a real battering this year. It's hardly a vote of confidence in the profession.

Following reader nominations, we have compiled a shortlist of contenders for the Media Hero and Villain Awards. You can vote, here.

Media Hero of 2009

- The Telegraph for its investigation into MPs' expenses- The Guardian vs Carter-Ruck; highlighting the issue of super injunctions- The 'Twitterverse' for a year of Twitterstorms- Nick Davies for the News of the World phone-tapping investigation- Question Time for giving Nick Griffin enough rope to hang himself

Media Villain of 2009

- Jan Moir for her Stephen Gately column- The Express for '100 reasons why climate change isn't man made'- The High Court for its support of injunctions and super injunctions- Carter-Ruck for its attempts to silence the UK media- The Metropolitan police for restricting the rights of photographers- The BBC for its heavy reliance on hokey health and science surveys- The BBC for its 'should homosexuals be executed?' forum

Dec 16, 2009

It isn't unusual for the press to use the nebulous 'public interest' argument to justify their reporting of certain stories. From the Max Mosley 'sick Nazi orgy' to the ongoing coverage of Tiger Woods' 'transgressions', it's an argument that's growing wearyingly thin. (For a nice deconstruction of the Tiger Woods circus, see here.)

The Daily Mail, however, tends to see itself as an arbiter of another important virtue: common sense. It's this dubious common sense that appears to underpin its more vicious coverage of immigration and so on. A search for "common sense" on the Mail Online yields 3,531 results - and the headlines usually involve it being urged over some PC agenda.

The Mail's common sense is, of course, characteristically skewed. Unsurprisingly, it's the subject of cultural sensitivity around which the Mail's common sense framework becomes most subjective.

Today, it was reported that registrar Lillian Ladele - who refused to conduct civil ceremonies for gay couples - was unsuccessful in her appeal against Islington Council. Now this, to me, seems like common sense. Registrars are employed to fulfil their duties, not to arbitrate. Not to decide who is or isn't entitled to a partnership based on personal ideals.

But the Mail pushes its reader in another direction: "The right to express a strong Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals under Labour's equality laws, they [the Appeal Court judges] said." They didn't actually say this. They said the law took precedence over personal belief, which it does.

"Whatever happened to common sense?" asks one commenter. "If she did not want to do it they should have got someone else to fill her place for the so called marriage." (I suspect many people would like to be selective in their basic work duties, but sadly most of us still have to get up on a Monday morning.)

It may be drearily predictable to compare this to another instance of religion versus regulation in the Daily Mail, but here goes. In June, a Mail headline reported: "Catholic school bars Muslim teacher who refused to remove face veil so staff could identify her." A niquab-wearing teacher in a Roman Catholic school? Not so. The woman worked in an Islamic school, but attended an open day at the Catholic one. Not much mention of personal freedom - and Amie from Southampton, who trumpets "Common sense at last!", is rewarded with 1101 recommendations.

Like the concept of offence, common sense will continue to be used to push the Mail's editorial agenda. In fact, the Mail likes common sense so much it even reports it as news. "Hard-working members of staff resent staff who make less effort for the same money," it says in an article today. You never! Now that's common sense.

Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act. The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18. Imprisonment for seven years for "attempted homosexuality".

It's hard not to be shocked upon hearing such proposals in 2009, but always open-minded the BBC is canvassing some opinion on the subject. In a forum entitled 'Should homosexuals face execution?' the BBC asks:

We're delighted to announce the launch of the first MediaBlog Awards and we want your nominations for the shortlist.

First up what we anticipate to be the most hotly contested catergories:

Media Hero of the YearIt's easy to forget amid the criticism their profession recieves the sterling work done by campaigning journalists in bringing shocking truths to light. Likewise the editors who risk reprisals or legal action to get a story into the public domain. We're looking for those people who have gone above and beyond in the name of a good story that needed to be told.

Media Villain of the YearYou would have to have been living in a cave this year not to have noticed some stories that have sparked outrage for everything from poorly disguised prejudice to dangerously misleading claims. Similarly there are those who have attempted to stand in the way of a story or defend the indefensible. We want your nominations for the person or people who have done the most to debase the media, or lower the conversation with a poisonous agenda. Alternatively you may want to nominate an individual or organisation who has threatened the success or stability of the media.

Post a comment below and let us know who you think should be shortlisted for these two awards... and why. You can also email awards@themediablog.co.uk to make your nominations.

Dec 15, 2009

I went to a Demos/Prospect debate last night to discover (once again) whether the internet is changing politics. The answer (once again): sort of, but perhaps not as much as you might think.

Towards the end of the night the four panelists were asked what impact the web will have during the forthcoming general election, and this solicited perhaps the most interesting replies of the night.

For John Lloyd, contributing editor at the Financial Times, it was all about the money. As Barack Obama showed during 2007 and 2008, small(ish) internet donations add up. "Forty per cent of the biggest take ever is a lot of money," said Lloyd, who expects the UK parties to follow suit.

Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East and noted blogger, said he expected that an "independent candidate will become an internet sensation, probably in a university town, probably from the Pirate Party."

In a similar vein, Evgeny Morozov from Georgetown University said one of the biggest beneficiaries of the web will be fringe movements: "These are the ones most often shut off from the mainstream media."

And Risha Saha, the man who will lead the Tories online campaign as head of new media, predicted that there will be "two or three 'gotcha' moments that will carry the news media for two or three days at a time".

*Breaking* UK news aggregator NewsNow is pulling links to many of the UK's biggest national newspapers after failure to reach agreement with The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited (the NLA).

The NLA had threatened NewsNow with legal action if it did not change the way it does business or cease from linking altogether.

The aggregator's managing director Struan Bartlett said: "We strongly feel that to accept the NLA’s terms would set a dangerous precedent restricting our customers’ ability to conduct their business freely.

"We see this as a ‘slippery slope’ towards any free-to-access website demanding licence fees from any organisation for circulating or clicking on links.”

Newspaper titles that NewsNow is to pull from its subscription service include The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and the Daily Mirror. NLA member publications will remain available via NewsNow’s free website.

The Guardian has today launched its first iPhone app, allowing users to access news on the move, from a simple handheld device called a mobile phone. It's all been made possible by a technology called WAP...

...oh no, that actually was 2002.

Of course we've all actually been able to do this for years - the Guardian even admits it has nearly a million mobile users happily reading its content already - but this is different, says Emily Bell, director of digital content, Guardian News & Media (watch the video, right, to find out more).

"There is no other news app like it on the App Store," said Bell in a Guardian press release. "Users can personalise their homepage to get quicker access to the content most relevant to them, browse content offline, effortlessly flip through our stunning photo galleries and access every contributor; from Charlie Brooker to Polly Toynbee."

iPod Touch

While anybody who used to cache pages on their Palm handheld before leaving for the office may claim reading online content offline is not that new, and the use of 3G and wifi may be evolution not revolution, this is still a handy innovation for us iPod Touch users or even those using the iPhone on a commute with patchy reception.

Because while I tend to be a fan of serendipity, rather than simply getting what I think I want to read when it comes to reading a newspaper, getting news on the move is altogether different and still involves far too much time spent trawling through multiple pages or menus, watching content load.

I'm sure the Guardian's people behind this would admit they're not splitting the atom with this launch but rather simplifying something many of us do already. And that's why the app only costs £2.39 I'd imagine - a reflection that we're paying for convenience, not for a whole new way of life. To me, that seems a fair price for taking the hassle out of configuring multiple RSS feeds or simply removing a few stages of unncessary hassle from my morning trawl through the online news. The experience is also hugely more enjoyable than wrestling with a more makeshift option via RSS.

But while the price is no barrier to trying it out, it is perhaps just enough to ensure if users like it they'll be less promiscuous regarding where they get their online news, stopping the trend towards aggregation and masthead indifference. In that regard it's wonderfully forward thinking. While Murdoch believes it's all about paywalls and monetising commoditised news, the Guardian meanwhile realises it's actually about delivery, personal preference and user experience.

And the initial feedback looks good too:

@macTweeter: First Impressions: Guardian Launches iPhone App, And It’s Good

@charltonbrooker: Just downloaded the new Guardian iPhone app, like an obedient little boy

@nickludlam: The Guardian's iPhone app is extremely well thought out, and a fantastic first version

Dec 13, 2009

Anybody who endured the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year yawn-fest will be waking up on their sofas Monday with that nagging "the weird thing is, just before I nodded off I thought they said Ryan Giggs had won" feeling.

I was similarly incredulous, not least of all as I'd identified - writing on another blog last week - the Manchester United star as little more than the glaring makeweight on the list. An almost too late acknowledgement of little more than a long career with a successful team where at least 10 team mates must also share the credit for an utter capitulation against Barcelona in their most testing encounter of last season.

"I used to leave training and be able to go out shopping... but not now... These days I go home, put my feet up and sit on the settee watching TV or DVDs. My life is boring, boring, boring."

Or maybe not.

Of course these things are all subjective but something which deserves explanation is the BBC and its expert panel ignoring Northern Ireland's Tony McCoy, the most successful national hunt jockey of all time who this year rode an unprecedented 3,000th winner. Is it prejudice against McCoy, or just the sport he chooses to excel at?

The facts don't lie and surely should be better reflected in the BBC's coverage.

According to Deloitte, horse racing contributes somewhere in the region of £3.7bn to the UK economy, including £325m in taxes, placing it second on financial grounds as well as audience figures. And no prizes for guessing that it is only football that beats it on either list. Certainly not cricket, cycling, diving, gymnastics or any other sport, bar football, that the public were left to pick from in choosing the winner of the BBC gong.

Woods no doubt realises the global nature of the internet will soon drown out any injunction in isolated quarters of the global press pack but he can also rightly assert he has a reputation to protect in the UK and has every right to do so in the name of privacy.

But this is also the latest example of how accommodating our libel and privacy laws are for those able to meet the costs.

It seems unlikely Woods should have a greater right to privacy 4,000 miles from home than he would on his own doorstep, but it's true and it's certainly got backs up on newspapers across the UK (Tiger Woods injunction makes an ass of the law, The Telegraph).

Perhaps Visit Britain should add our privacy and libel laws to the list of reasons tourists should come to the UK.

"Come to Britain where favourable libel laws await! Visit Legoland Windsor and Windsor Castle in the morning, take out an injunction or maybe even sue somebody for libel in the afternoon, then in the evening take in a show."

Rampant piracy, falling prices, confusion over where and how to buy music and a consumer downturn – it is a torrid time in the record business...

You've heard this all before and we've long been urged - by the record industry of course - to believe this is true. Meanwhile, the second story in the Observer states X Factor finale gives ITV a bonanza:

...phone lines are expected to be busier this time as people now have a whole day to make their choice. This should generate about £1.5m from the premium line vote, while the show's sponsorship deal with Talk Talk is estimated to be worth £500,000 for the final. When these sums are added to advertising from the X Factor website, income for the weekend may pass £20m. Sadly for ITV, much of this will go into Cowell's pocket... He is also about to renegotiate his deal with the channel, worth £20m over three years.

So, some people in the music industry are actually making more money than ever before. Undoubtedly the channel and value proposition have changed but ultimately the moaning looks more and more like the griping of those quarters of the music industry who didn't spot the evolution taking place. Likewise, is there no correlation between Simon Cowell's wilful blanding of the end product by focussing his efforts on the production line, and people's unwillingness to pay for CDs or downloads?

I'm surprised the Observer didn't challenge EMI's self-diagnosis a little more aggressively. It reminds me of the host of newspaper reports supporting landlord and BBPA calls for lower taxes, citing falling beer sales, while electing to either ignore or not enquire about rising cider, wine and food sales.

At a time when newspapers are giving the oxygen of publicity to the lunatic fringe of climate change deniers, it seems strange they wouldn't at least question a self-serving agenda of finger-pointing from the record industry.

Dec 11, 2009

By all accounts Newcastle United's two-nil away win at Coventry on Wednesday night was a turgid affair. Regardless, well done BBC Radio Five Live for making it the station's live commentary on a night of Champions' League football.

By my reckoning, it is the first time Five Live has shunned the World's 'premier club tournament' - (c.) Uefa - in favour of another game, let alone one from the Ricoh Arena.

Yet it took this wholly sensible decision because all three matches involving British teams in Europe were dead rubbers - Rangers and Liverpool couldn't qualify while Arsenal couldn't finish anywhere but top of their group.

Better a competitive second-tier, domestic league game than a meaningless Champions' League affair.

Shame, ITV failed to make the brave decision.

Instead, the commercial broadcaster - whose expensive Champions' League outlay was rewarded with three meaningless games in one night - chose to show one of them. It could - should - have shown a match involving either Barcelona or Inter Milan in a group where all four teams could still qualify. It didn't.

And how was it rewarded for its timidity? Just over three million viewers tuned into Olympiakos against Arsenal Reserves, according to the overnights.

That's a mere 14 per cent share and an audience dwarfed by both Spooks and Waterloo Road.

There are a few stories a newspaper editor can count on as a banker long before the 'news' breaks: The Budget (March); Rough-looking women turn up at Aintree for the National (April); Exams are getting easier (August); Basking sharks off the coast of Cornwall (September) and, traditionally, footballers go on the rampage after a drunken Christmas party (December).